Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.

ThePortlandeer wrote:Somewhat related to all this, while doing some research concerning HR 621 I happened upon a sportsmen website who also have taken issue with the proposed land distribution. I'm not a hunter (in fact I've opposed all forms of gun recreation and most hunting - a different conversation), but I signed the petition nonetheless. More than anything I was impressed by how organized they were from an advocacy standpoint. Maybe hunters in general have a more focused pursuit than hikers and better form lobby-like interests, but perhaps we need to add another forum here for organizing and pooling our collective interests to become a stronger voice...

however anyone feels about hunting and even sharing the woods with hunters, they are a huge group of people that have a long history of wildlife and habitat conservation and have a huge investment on keeping our public lands, public. Many of them are traditionally conservative, so its really important to include them in this cause and not alienate them because of differences and get them to write their representatives.... Which many of them already have...

Indeed this is an issue where people across the political spectrum, at least some of them, can agree. But I also remember a couple years ago when there was a local issue (in Lyle) about public lands for hiking trails that somebody wrote a letter to the editor saying, in effect, that if people would just work hard and buy some land of their own, then they wouldn't need public land to recreate on. Anybody who thinks that way is bound to support privatizing public lands and I would hazard a guess that while maybe they would accept national parks, there is probably little room for compromise with that line of thought when it comes to most forms of public lands.

Regarding hunters, fishers, ..., keep in mind that 'sporstmen' are being used to justify bills like HR 2406. Zinke voted in favor of HR 2406, a bill that would "[open] America’s wilderness areas to motorized vehicles, road construction" according to Wilderness Society lawyers, and others.

If you are a hunter and want roads and cars in wilderness, so be it. If not, the extractive industries are co-opting your identity, as is the House Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus.

The group that came up with $646 billion dollar figure is the Outdoor Industry Association, or OIA. The OIA endorses Zinke, see their policy article by their government affairs manager, Jessica Wahl: "4 Reasons To Be Optimistic About the Zinke Nomination". Wahl quotes Zinke: "I'm specifically concerned with public access. I'm a hunter and fisherman." That is hoodwink code for roads and cars in wilderness. Also, while she chery-picks Zinke: "I fully recognize and appreciate that there are lands that deserve special recognition and are better managed under the John Muir model of wilderness, where man is more of an observer than an active participant.", she lost my trust by failing to quote what Zinke wrote next: "I also recognize that the preponderance of our federal holdings are better suited to be managed under the Pinchot model of multiple use using best practices, sustainable policies, and objective science.". Pinchot and Muir were enemies.

The non-profit's total revenue was $6.5 million in 2014, the most recent year available. One third of that, $2.1 million dollars, went to salaries and compensation. The base compensation of their CEO, Frank Hugelmeyer, was $300,000 (on par with the Wilderness Society CEO).

Hugelmeyer is now President of the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, or RVIA.

Yeah, I'm not sure OIA (and similar) is one to partner with. Also, I find their $646 billion figure is inflated 12 times over the goverment's figure of $51 billion, of which $13 billion and 220,000 jobs are attributable to USFS lands.

This is from a NYT article back on Dec 16th, 2016, which further indicates that Zinke (and Trump) are not interested in selling off public lands (in contrast to mainstream Republicans):

[Trump] was so taken with Mr. Zinke during their meeting on Monday at Trump Tower that he offered him the position. Mr. Trump’s son Donald Jr. quashed a competing candidate, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington State, because of her support for selling off public land, a senior Republican official said.

Mr. Trump’s defiant selection of Mr. Zinke, 55, dismayed Republicans in the capital and raised suspicions about how reliable an ally he will be for the party. Even as Mr. Trump has installed party stalwarts in a few cabinet departments, he has repeatedly shrugged off the requests of Republicans who have asked for help reinforcing their power in Congress.

My impression was that creation of a new National Monument entails a new designation on existing federal lands, so the term 'land grab' doesn't make sense, as it does for eminent domain actions (railroads, pipelines, ...)

Lastly, during his Senate confirmation hearings (link above) for DOI Secretary, Zinke was asked about forest management. Zinke replied by ridiculing current practice as being "management by fire", the implication being that he would sign off on logging as a means to prevent forest fires. He'd likely support "Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act" bills, such as S2286 from 2015, which calls for logging to prevent catastrophic wildfires (in the name of protecting endangered species). Specific wording calls for logging in inventoried roadless areas and wilderness study areas ... [snark]increased access for sportsmen[/snark].https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... -bill/2286

Disclaimer:
This is a free, private forum and opinions posted by its members do not necessarily reflect those of Trailkeepers of Oregon. Hiking is a potentially risky activity, and the entire risk for users of this forum is assumed by the user, and in no event shall Trailkeepers of Oregon be liable for any injury or damages suffered as a result of relying on content in this forum. All content posted on the forum becomes the property of Trailkeepers of Oregon, and may not be used without permission.